HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn.No.40/2026 Date of order: 08.09.2026 1. Shri Alphonsius Pariong 2. Smti. A (survivor) .... Petitioners Vs 1. State of Meghalaya, through Public Prosecutor. 2. The Officer-in-Charge, Mairang Police Station, Eastern West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. 3. Shri B Informant in Mairang P.S. Case No.29(08) of 2022. ..... Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mrs. A. Synrem, Adv For the Respondents : Mrs. T. Yangi B., AAG with Mr. S.A. Sheikh, GA Ms. P. Chettri, Adv for R/3 i) Whether approved for No reporting in Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication No in press: JUDGMENT: (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties in all the aforesaid petitions and is taken up for final disposal. Serial No.03 Daily List 2026:MLHC:992 3. By this petition, the petitioners i.e. petitioner No.1 (original accused) and petitioner No.2 (survivor), seek quashing of the FIR registered with the Mairang Police Station, being FIR No.29(08) 2022, at the behest of respondent No.3 (father of the petitioner No.2), for the alleged offences punishable under Section 5 (j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the chargesheet and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District, being Special (POCSO) Case No.20 of 2024. 4. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties were earlier living together as husband and wife with their son aged 3 years and 8 months born from the said relationship and that the parties have now got married on 11th August, 2026. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tendered a certificate of marriage issued by the Registrar of Marriage evidencing marriage of the petitioners on 11th August, 2026. 5. Since this is a petition seeking quashing of the FIR and consequently, the proceeding with the consent of the parties, vide order dated 12th May, 2026, the parties were directed to 2026:MLHC:992 appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority, in order to enable the Secretary to record the statement of the petitioner No.2, as to whether the consent given by the petitioner No.2 was an informed consent; whether the petitioner No.2 and her child have received any benefit from any of the schemes under the State or Central Government etc. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority, has submitted her report in a sealed envelope which was opened on 8th June, 2026. From the said report, it appears that the petitioner No.2 at the relevant time was a minor aged more than 16 years of age and the petitioner No.1 was 21 years of age. Today, the petitioner No.1 is aged 25 years and the petitioner No.2, is more than 20 years. It appears from the report that they are living together as husband and wife with their son aged 3 years and 8 months born from the said relationship. It further appears from the report that the petitioner No.1 is living with the parents of petitioner No.2 and that both families have no objection to the same. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has tendered a marriage certificate, which shows 2026:MLHC:992 that the petitioners have got married on 11th August, 2026. Photo copy of the said certificate of marriage is taken on record. 6. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent No.3 (original complainant and father of the petitioner No.2) was present on 8th June, 2026, and that his presence is recorded in the said order. On the said date, he gave his no objection to the quashing of the proceeding initiated at his behest, since petitioner No. 1 was taking care of his daughter and the child born from the said relationship. 7. This Court in its judgment in the case of Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr, passed in Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023 dated 10th April, 2026, in paragraphs 31, 33, 34 and 35 has observed as hereunder: “31. The ground realities in the State of Meghalaya cannot be ignored and lost sight of. It shows high incidents of adolescent consensual relationships culminating in elopement and early marriage or living together, as husband and wife, which is recognised by the society. Infact, cases of adolescent relationships where the parties i.e., the victim and the boy have got married or are living together as husband and wife and have a child from the said relationship are far too many, resulting in parties filing petitions under Section 528 BNSS (earlier, Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the proceeding by consent of the parties. 2026:MLHC:992 32. ..... 33. What also cannot be lost sight of is, that in Meghalaya, matrilineal system is a rare, ancient societal structure among the Khasi, Garo and Jaintia tribes, where lineage and inheritance pass through the mother. Children take their mother’s surname, the youngest daughter inherits the property (is the custodian of ancestral property) and the husband often moves into the wife’s house. The system is believed to have originated from an agrarian society and the need to protect the family structure, ensuring women’s economic security, social stability and the preservation of tribal identity. Infact, in the Khasi community, women have more independence than women in many patriarchal communities, including the freedom to select their partners, remarry without shame and take an active role in public places like market place and businesses. It is in this background that this Court would have to consider a case seeking quashing of a POCSO case by consent, keeping in mind all factors, including the girl’s (victim’s) and her child’s social security, by ensuring that she and the child get the benefit of the government schemes, including under the POCSO Act. 34. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, quashing of a POCSO case under Section 528 BNSS by consent, is permissible even if it is a special statute and there is no specific exclusion of any present law/custom. However, the said discretion has to be used with due care and caution and circumspection in exceptional cases, to do justice. As noted earlier, there cannot be any straitjacket formula as to in which cases the said discretion can or cannot be exercised, inasmuch as, that would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case i.e., the age of the parties coming before the court; whether the consent given by the victim is an informed consent and not under coercion of the family members or the boy; that the victim and the accused are married and have a child or are living together as husband and wife, as per the customs in the State of Meghalaya, etc. Where parties are living together as 2026:MLHC:992 husband and wife or are married, a police report, or a report from any authority, be called for, verifying the said claim. Also, while considering whether the consent of the victim is an ‘informed consent’, it is necessary that the victim places her affidavit on record giving her ‘No Objection’ to the quashing of the case. That, before such an affidavit is accepted, in order to ensure that the consent is an informed consent, the victim may be sent before the Secretary, MLSA or Secretary, DLSA to ascertain whether the consent is an informed consent, by giving her time to ponder over the same; and a report be called for, before such quashing petition is considered. While quashing the case, the Government schemes that may be available to a victim in a POCSO Act and the child born from the said relationship also be given due weightage as suggested and directed by the Apex Court in the case of Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (supra). 35. No doubt, we are conscious of the fact that a case under POCSO Act, is not a case against an individual, but is an offence against the society as a whole, however, the administration or enforcement of the law cannot be divorced from lived realities. Rendering justice demands not only that the law be applied with precision, but also that it be tempered with fairness, compassion and empathy when the situation/facts of a case, warrant it. Thus, it is necessary to maintain a fine balance between the competing interests of justice, deterrence and rehabilitation. Where the victim and the boy are married or are living together as husband and wife (and recognised), and have a child/children, sending the boy to jail would not serve the cause of justice, rather it would cause great injustice to the victim and the child born from the said consensual relationship, as ultimately, the aim of the law is to do justice. Thus, in cases where the court comes to the conclusion, that the consent given by the victim is a genuine and informed consent and that it would be greater injustice to send the boy to jail, instead of letting the parties live together as one family, the Court may consider quashing the case, pending trial, keeping in mind what is 2026:MLHC:992 stated aforesaid. We may note, considering the large number of POCSO cases, in particular Romeo – Juliet cases, it is the responsibility of the State Government to create awareness amongst the people, including the children about the provisions of the POCSO Act, its punishment, etc., not only in the cities but also in the interior and remote places, including schools, colleges, etc.” 8. Having regard to the aforesaid judgment; the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee; the fact that the petitioners are living together as husband and wife and today, have got married and living happily with their son aged about 3 years and 8 months; and also having regard to the no objection given by the petitioner No.2 to the quashing of the FIR and consequently the proceeding, there is no impediment if the petition is allowed. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR registered with the Mairang Police Station, being FIR No.29(08) 2022, the chargesheet and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District, being Special (POCSO) Case No.20 of 2024, are quashed and set aside. 2026:MLHC:992 10. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. 11. Petition is disposed of accordingly. 12. Needless to state, that the petitioner No.2 and her son be extended all benefits as may be applicable to them i.e., the Schemes from either the State or Central Government, which are as under; (i) Scheme for Care and Support to Victims of under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act (exclusively for POCSO victims) [Nirbhaya Fund]; (ii) Mission Vatsalya Scheme (Child Protection Services); (iii) Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao (BBBP) Scheme; (iv) Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme, 2022; (v) Meghalaya Health Insurance Scheme; (vi) Ayushman Bharat-PM-JAY (free health); (vii) Mission 1000 Days-Meghalaya; (viii) Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK); (ix) Chief Minister’s Safe Motherhood Scheme or CM-SMS; (x) Special Training Programme for age-appropriate admission of Out of School Children (OoSC) and Back to School Campaign; (xi) Samagra Siksha (Back to School); (xii) NALSA (Child-Friendly Legal Services for Children) Scheme 2024; 2026:MLHC:992 (xiii) NALSA (Legal Services to Persons with Mental Illness and Persons with intellectual Disabilities) Scheme, 2024; and (xiv) Mission Shakti-Women’s Safety, Support and Empowerment; and (xv) Insurance or any other scheme. 13. 13. In order to enable the petitioner No.2 to get the benefits of the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer (DCPO), Eastern West Khasi Hills District, Mairang as well as the Secretary, DLSA, Eastern West Khasi Hills District, Mairang are directed to ensure that the benefits as may be applicable to the petitioner No.2 and her son are made available to them at the earliest and in any event within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 14. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the petitioner No.2 and her child be placed before this Court on the next date. 15. If compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme is granted to the petitioner No. 2, the said money received will be kept in a Fixed Deposit till the petitioner No. 2 attains the age of 25 years. However, the petitioner No. 2 would be entitled to 2026:MLHC:992 quarterly interest on the said amount and would be free to deal with the said amount on attaining the age of 25 years. 16. The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this order to both, the Member Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority, Shillong and Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Shillong as well as to the District Child Protection Officer (DCPO), Eastern West Khasi Hills District, Mairang and the Secretary, DLSA, Eastern West Khasi Hills District, Mairang, to enable them to take steps and comply with the same. 17. Although, the petition is disposed of, list the petition on 4th November, 2026 for recording compliance of the directions given in paragraphs 12 to 15 aforesaid. 18. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice Meghalaya 08.09.2026 “Lam DR-PS” 2026:MLHC:992 Digitally signed by LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY Date: 2026.09.08 18:56:26 IST